The French Revolution: A Destructive Destiny for the Monarchy?
1. Introduction
The French Revolution during 1789 to 1799 was one of the most significant revolution in
human history. It marked the downfall of powerful monarchies and the rising of democracy, and it was also regarded as the start of the modern era. One of the major outcomes of the revolution was the abolition of the French monarchy. It was the first time in Europe that a monarchy was completely overthrown by the people it ruled. The process of abolition started with the Estates of General in 1789 and was considered mostly achieved when Louis XVI the monarch was executed in 1793. In this article, I will discuss this question: was the downfall of the French monarchy an inevitable outcome of the French Revolution? In my opinion, it should be answered from two different angles. On the one hand, the French Revolution was out of economic circumstances rather than out of changing ideologies, so the revolution itself could easily be avoided or delayed; on the other hand, once the revolution started, the destructive destiny of the monarchy was inevitable because the monarchy couldn?t coexist with the revolution. The abolition was also fueled by a series of actions conducted by Louis XVI that alienated himself from the French people. To further explain my arguments, in the next chapters I will analyze the background of the French society and the events from the start of the revolution to the execution of Louis XVI.
2. Social Background of Pre-Revolution France
When Louis XVI took over the regime, France was undergoing a serious financial crisis
due to France?s involvements in multiple wars during the 1770s. The government was close to bankruptcy. At the meantime, the tax system which favored clergy and nobility also gave normal people a heavy burden. To make it simple, the French people under the regime of Louis XVI were very poor. People in the rural areas were living in serious poverty. According to “Social Causes of the Revolution”, about “80%” of French under Louis XVI “lived in villages of 2,000 or less”, and “90% of the peasants earned only enough to feed families”. People in the cities didn?t live better lives as they faced high food price and short life spans due to pollution while experiencing restriction of employments. As the financial crisis became more serious, Louis XVI assembled the Estates-General in 1789 in order to solve the social crisis, which would eventually trigger the revolution.
The poor living conditions of general public combined with their hatred toward the privileges of clergy and nobility were the most important causes of the revolution. Some would argue that the Enlightenment ideologies fueled the revolution, but this could be easily refuted: imagine if Louis XVI took actions to solve the financial crisis and improved people?s living conditions by regulating taxes and weakening privileges, would the revolution still occur? Probably not, because a revolution would not be immediately necessary, at least not in the scale of a whole nation. There would probably be protests asking for a more democratic state, but they would hardly get any support from normal people who was not faced with immediate threats on their lives. On the other hand, the Enlightenment certainly dissolved people?s traditional idea of the “untouchable” divine status of the monarch, which made it possible to completely overthrow the monarchy. When we talk about the inevitability of the revolution, I think a revolution of the same or similar nature as the French Revolution was not avoidable in Europe because as long as
a monarchy was ruling, the quality of lives of the governed people would depend on the monarch who was chosen by birth, thus making his abilities mostly random. When the monarch happened to be a good governor, people?s living conditions would be good, but when the monarch was incapable of his job, people have no choice but to suffer. In this case, there would always be a bad ruler who would fuel a revolution to destroy the monarchy.
A good example to prove the significance of the poor economic situation in the
revolution was France?s neighbor Britain during the period of French Revolution. In “Why There Was No Revolution”, explained that although faced with attraction of revolution in the neighbor, the British refused a revolution because “the common people of Britain believed themselves to be well of economically and politically compared to their counterparts in other lands, especially the hated French.” (p119) He also noticed that “Famine had long ceased in Britain but continued in France into the nineteenth century”. (p119) One can surely argue that French people were naturally more revolutionary than British, but at the end of the day, what could really drive a whole nation to a revolution was the immediate threats on their livings rather than some ideologies or national Characteristics.
3. Alienating Actions of Louis XVI During the Revolution
As the title suggests, this chapter is to analyze a series of actions from Louis XVI or
members of the royal family which damaged his public opinions and could contributed to the overthrown of the monarchy and the execution of Louis XVI himself.
The French Revolution
